John McPhee - Nicole Wurzell

i must admit that while i did somewhat enjoy reading the two mcphee pieces, i developed more of an interest/appreciation of mcphee after today's lecture because i think i truly realized just how much work went into these two pieces. the research is obvious because he goes into great detail about numerous things but i think that mcphee provides a dedication that surpasses what we have seen thus far. first of off, he was communicating with that truck driver for four years!! ...that is commitment. also, in the "sort" piece i really like how he covered such a wide variety of topics and managed to pull them all together so cohesively - he went from the lobster, to the UPS room, then talked about the school and then got even more personal by introducing a few people who work there. i felt like it took the article from the big overwhelming elements of huge lobster tanks to the massive building and focused in on more minute details (such as the story of the single mom). in the pice about the truck driver i was surprised to see how much of mcphee himself was brought into the article; for instance, he mentions not being scared in the car and finally fitting in once he had the trucker hat. this was effective because it allowed me, the reader, to also play the role of the outsider and see what it was like to get a glimpse into this (odd) guy's world. although we did get somewhat of a warning about the mcphee article for thursday, i am actually excited to read it now!

Comments

[Amber Cleave]

I must admit that I agree with Nicole. I appreciate Mcphee much more after discussing him in class. There is so much going on in his work that coming from the perspective of an intro to LJ student, it is almost overwhelming. The caliber of his techniques and his ability to create a sense of a place are just mind blowing. As well, I am accepting the fact (somewhat unwillingly) that my own piece cannot be on the same level of writing as the pieces we read for class. It just isn't possible at this point, but I do have some anxiety about wanting to create a masterpiece, and knowing it can't yet be done. I am also excited to read his next article and I can't wait to pick apart the scenes he creates.

[Pierce Nahigyan]

I enjoyed these pieces as well--though, as I said in class I can't really pin it to any particular reason. McPhee has a very easy-going, informative manner of writing but there isn't anything that really sticks out.

However, I need to remark on something that stuck out like a sore, gangrene-ish thumb towards the end of "Fleet of One." And it is this sentence:

"Some people had built their houses entirely of pressure-treated wood, and from the arsenic in the preserving compounds the people were going the way of old lace. "

C'mon. An 'Arsenic and Old Lace' pun-anecdote-whatever the hell it is? McPhee seems to me to be too professional a writer to stick something like this in, especially so near to the conclusion. Why did he do this? This is exactly the kind of thing the writers from Writer L (sp?) were complaining about in the long run-on sentence and the alliteration, or the Picasso-reference (though I didn't really mind either of these). To be honest, I've done the same sort of thing myself, and will probably continue to do so in the future. Why? Because it's fun and it's more than just an ego-stroke; it's like a little joke for yourself and maybe for the reader.

Still, did anyone else get violently poked in the eye with this one? Am I just an anal-retentive jerk?

[Miguel Murillo]

BUILD UP, BUILD UP, BUILD UP, BUILD UP...AND LUNCH AT 2:49

Undeniably, McPhee's "Flee of One" is both insightful and entertaining. Is it perfect? Close. Is "the caliber of his techniques" for creating a sense of place "mind blowing"? I don't know which 'techniques' we're talking about.

What impressed me the most, though, is the how he moves from exposition to scenes, to reporting empirical data, and back to exposition or scenes. (Keep in mind that this chronology is barely superficial.) Here are some of his 'moves'. (I've skipped a few.)

1. Exposition: Problem: four-wheelers; putting it in perspective: driving school.
3. Scene: "fall down Cabbage;" putting it in perspective: dangers: 6% slope; transition: "Bears."
5. Summary: Setting; transition: Don's comment on "operatic" engine sound.
6. Summary: Don's truck obssession; putting it in perspective: Blue Beacon.
7. Summary: Don's description: cowboy boots vs. running shoes (WHY WAIT SIX PAGES FOR THIS?).
8. Exposition: Cargo (chemicals), putting it in perspective: value of cargo.
9. Summary: dangers of cargo ('wash'); complexity.
10. Characterizaton: what Don does when he's "given imperfect directions."
12. Setting: gas prices; transition: "a sharp-looking rig."
13. Exposition: Don's truck obssession; transition: gas $2.49.
14. Summary: the different prices of gas; transition: "I'm a businessman...."
15. Summary: why Don takes care of his truck (WHY NOW, WHY NO TUSE THIS PARTTICULAR PARAGRAPH SOMEHWERE ELSE?); transition: "like a kid...."
16. Exposition: Don's childhood (Father); origin of Don's profession.
17. Characterization: Don watches his diet; transition to ethics of truckers.
18. Summary: the danger of cargo (explosives). SEE WHY HIS STRUCTURE REALLY WORKS? transition: "he seldom misses a Sunday service.
19. Summary: Don's ethics: "doppers are everywhere;" transition: drug screening.
20. Exposition: 9/11--HE'S DOING IT AGAIN! WHY USE THIS LAYERING, THIS PANCAKE STRUCTURE?
21. Summary: restrinctions on truckers: cops, d.o.t.
22. Summary: contrast of the boat driving trucjer and Don (WHAT IS MACPHEE SUGGESTING?).
23. Scene: unloading cargo; summary: cargo (chemicals). HERE IS WHERE THE DREADED 'ARSENIC' TREATED WOOD APPEARS.
24. Summary: Don's headed for Portland, cycle starts again.

Finally, not defending McPhee, I did see an oddly 'irrelevant' paragraph: "I would pay for my freedom at Seattle-Tacoma airport..." (7). I can imply what the purpose of this paragraph, but it's too vague. Does somebody have any thougths (other than it being b.s.) on this paragraph. And about what started this response: the arsenic-lace connection seems to suggest the value in what Don's doing--some sort of benevolant deed, and the imagery of arsenic and lace is a contrast between the deadly and the pretty, people shriveling (people: good, arsenic: bad), I think. So, no poke. And you said it not I.

Look at the time!! Gotta go eat.

[Pierce Nahigyan]

I agree with the Seattle-Tacoma thing--I also tried to find the specific relevance of this paragraph and was somewhat disappointed to find no further correlation with the rest of the piece. In a Thompson piece it wouldn't be far from the norm--Thompson' articles are seldom about whatever the hell he's supposed to be reporting on, and are more autobiographical in nature. (That being said, when he actually gets down to it, he's damn fine at real journalism.)

But no, I agree with the paragraph's irrelevance. It seemed like McPhee wanted the reader to know how badly he had suffered for his story or something. I dunno. Hrm.

[Lindsey Hess]

I really like and agree with what Nicole had to say about McPhee. I am so amazed by his dedication in his work. I feel like after the discussion on Tuesday I look at everything I read slightly different now. The way McPhee's writing flows is not only due to scene organization but also paragraph, sentence and even word placement. It seems as though he thought about where each individual word should go to have the greatest impact on the reader. It seems as though many of the writers we have read so far know how to tap into the readers emotions. This is pretty unbelievable if you think about how different people are and how diverse the readers are. It is a real talent to be able to really reach the reader. I can't quite grasp how some people have the ability to do this, I guess that it is something that comes over time and ultimately is what sets the great writers apart from the good ones!

[Veronica Lewis]

Although I feel as though McPhee is a master at what he does as a writer and literary journalist, I did not particularly like "Atchafalaya." However, I have to hand it to the man--he is probably one of the few people who can take the most random or most boring subject and bring it to life as a narrative. His randomness and uniqueness in making boring subjects into subjects of great interest are what make him such an admirable writer. Although "Atchafalaya" was long and, to some degree, a bit dreary at times, since it is mainly a type of historical and geographical narrative, it did have some appeal in the sense that it made history and geography come alive to the reader. His details and his overall style draw his readers to these random subjects, which I find most fascinating. Hence, even though this piece was not one of his better ones, it still has the mark of the McPhee, which makes it, nonetheless, worthwhile.

[Veronica Lewis]

I have one more random thought on McPhee. Having reading a good amount of McPhee's work in this class, it makes me think about the concept of a story. McPhee is such a great example of a writer who really thinks outside the box by taking on the most random stories, and truly making something amazing out of them. It makes me think: how can we, as writer, imitate McPhee's thinking in not only finding stories but also in truly making them come alive to our readers? What makes McPhee the writer that he is? If we can adopt his type of "go get them" mindset, how much more would we be able to write? The answer--so much more. I truly admire his thinking and writing style and strive to approach a random subject and attempt to make it come alive. McPhee is not only an admirable writer, but also a great example and embodiment of literary journalist.

[Yao Xu]

I agree with Veronica in that "Atchafalaya" was not the most engaging McPhee article in my opinion. I would a page, stop, then try to sum up the page but would have no idea what I was reading about. I'm sorry but there's too many dates, people, and incidents in various paragraphs that makes it too hard for me to get anything out of it. I do not think his writing style catches my attention because when I read "Out of the Sort," I was a bit confused when the lobster story suddenly transformed into an article about UPS and it just made me lose track of what I was reading about. However, I must admit that that transition between the two contents was pretty slick on his part. It took me two paragraphs into the UPS article to realize that I was reading about a different subject. I'm sure that he's a great writer, but we just do not connect on a writer to reader level.

[Marites Yao]

I agree with you about how I was confused at first about this transition from the focus on lobsters to the UPS shipment of packages. I didn't realize it but I actually thought that this was a long article that transitioned from lobsters to UPS to the life of a trucker - in the sense all focused on some means for transportation. Either way the lobster to UPS transition was well done in my opinion. Although it was a confusing transition at first, the digression connects.

I also agree with the others that when pin pointing one of his writting techniques, the most prominent thing is his use of detail. I may be completely wrong, but when I was reading this piece, I could not help but compare this piece to the article Strawberries Under Ice. In content and in form, they both have transitions from the power of nature and its affect on people's lives.

[Ali Taylor Lange]

So I'm a little late on the McPhee swing, but I thought I'd still try to add my 2 cents. I fear that they will be worth even less than 2 cents, but hey, why not. I found myself really relating to McPhee. I think that there is always a natural tendency to want to digress into the odd, and somewhat useless world of our transgressions. What makes McPhee good at this is his ability to make his transgressions more useful than useless. I think that is where the inexperienced writer will go wrong. It is difficult to decide what is useful to the reader and what is frivolous, and included only at the fun and entertainment of the author. So often I find that tangents, and much of writing, is written for the fun of the writer more than the actual desire to entertain a reader. For those of you who are skeptic, think about the humorous piece that you just had to write. I know I had to think 6 times as hard about the composition of a humorous piece than I ever have to when I am writing something that just "feels good to write". You are trying to be funny for a person reading, rather than just enjoying writing. Clearly, more often than not our writing is driven by our love of writing, and lacks a little bit of tailoring to the reader's desires.

[Nicholas Apallas]

Please get in touch with me Ali.